Search

Call it next-level corporate social responsibility. This year marks a new wave in which brands are acting on key public issues that elected officials and government agencies are not addressing. In February Dick's Sporting Goods spearheaded action on gun sales, last month Unilever took on toxic social media, and now advertisers are cutting ties with Fox News personality Laura Ingraham over personal comments directed at a 17-year-old high school student who survived the Parkland massacre, David Hogg.

The Ingraham episode is especially interesting because it pulls together all three trends: gun control, social media and the professional behavior of high profile media personalities.

First Bill O'Reilly, Now Laura Ingraham

Variety describes Laura Ingraham, as a "veteran conservative-leaning host and President Trump confidante." Her situation is especially interesting because she came to Fox News Channel just last year, as a replacement for Bill O'Reilly.

O'Reilly lost his show The O'Reilly Factor last spring after news surfaced that Fox paid out millions to settle sexual harassment claims against him. Major advertisers reacted by pulling out of his show, and within two weeks he was off the air.

Last week's Ingraham episode is following the same pattern so far, though the circumstances are quite different.

O'Reilly's behavior was repellent and harmful, but it was not conducted in the public sphere, and it was certainly not intended for public circulation.

In contrast, Ingraham fully intended to make her behavior public. Her troubles began on March 27 when she posted a comment about David Hogg on her Fox Twitter account, @IngrahamAngle.

If her tweet referenced Hogg's advocacy for gun control, Ingraham may have been able to fend off at least some of the backlash. However, she did not address gun control or any other issue. The comment was personal, and to make matters worse it was directed at a young person who by almost every definition is a child (Hogg is 17 years old at this time).

Brands taking stands...

There has been a lively public debate over media standards ever since the Federal Communication Commission revoked its Fairness Doctrine in 1987. The debate has only grown more complicated with the advent of cable television, the Internet and social media.

That vacuum has created an opportunity for brands that seek to project a strong social corporate social responsibility image.

Within hours after David Hogg posted a list of 12 top Ingraham Angle advertisers on Twitter, advertisers began rushing for the exits. Many took the opportunity to articulate their standards, reflecting a clear understanding that public opinion does not favor powerful adults who level personal attacks on minors.

By the morning of March 30, the list of advertisers cutting ties with Ingraham for comments directed at a minor included Stitch Fix, Johnson & Johnson, Hulu, Joseph A. Bank, Nutrish Pet Foods , Wayfair, Nestle and Expedia. Here is a representative comment from Wayfair:

“The decision of an adult to personally criticize a high school student who has lost his classmates in an unspeakable tragedy is not consistent with our values.”

Later on Friday Liberty Mutual, Office Depot, Jenny Craig, Atlantis Paradise Island and the Global investment group Principal joined the advertiser exodus, prompting Variety to observe that IBM was the only "blue chip" advertiser remaining.

On Friday Variety also reported that Ingraham will be on vacation next week.

Meanwhile, the bleeding continued over the weekend, with Bayer AG joining the list of advertisers fleeing Ingraham.

According to Variety, as of this writing Fox has no intention of dropping Ingraham from its lineup. By the same token, though, the advertisers who dropped out are not likely to come back to the fold.

...But why Hogg? Why now?

Whether or not Ingraham stays on the air, the Hogg episode brings up a good question: where have all these advertisers been all these years?

After all, Ingraham's use of personal invective -- often racially tinged -- is nothing new, and race has routinely factored into Fox attacks on "anchor babies" and other children in recent years, including a 14-year-old Muslim student.

Some observers have noted that the strong advertiser response to the Hogg tweet reflects a racial landscape in which media and the general public react far more strongly to crimes and offensive behavior that involves white victims.

That discussion is beyond the scope of this article, but among the other factors that may be at work, one is a simple matter of timing.

As recently as last October, when a gunman massacred 49 people at an outdoor concert in Las Vegas, gun "rights" lobbyists could still count on Ingraham and other Fox personalities to quash the voices of the victims and nullify calls for gun control. Here's a representative sample from Ingraham herself, on Twitter:

“All victims' bodies still not recovered and Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren kick into typical anti-gun stance. Gross.”

Fox and other conservatives succeeded in sweeping the Vegas killings off the mainstream media radar, but the episode was barely one month old before 25 people were killed at a small town church in Texas. The Parkland massacre took place on February 14, less than four months after that. Coming so close to one another, those three mass shootings may have helped build greater awareness that the public is exposed to random gun violence everywhere.

In that context, the corporate social responsibility movement has added fuel to the fire. CSR is now a mature, powerful force, and brands are on the lookout for opportunities to demonstrate leadership.

Savvy brands will jump on an opportunity to respond to public consensus on social issues, and Ingraham just handed over one such opportunity on a silver platter: she bullied a minor -- and a gun violence survivor -- online.

The Ingraham case combines gun control, toxic use of social media and a high profile media personality to create a tsunami of publicity for brands that want to be known for taking stands.

Whatever else happens to Ingraham's career, the episode should send a clear message to media. Brands are taking stands on social issues, and they are not shy about leveraging their advertising dollars to make their point.

Photo: Gage Skidmore/flickr.

By Scott Huntington

We all want to help people, but misinformation and a lack of confidence in corporatized aid efforts sometimes deter us from doing so. The list of NGOs, fundraisers and activist groups out there could fill volumes, but when jumping into aid work from a corporate standpoint, it can be hard to know where to start.

Located south of Cuba, easily accessible from the United States, the island nation of Haiti desperately needs support. People want to help, but most of us don’t know how best to get involved. Here are some ways your company can make a difference for Haiti and other places like it.

Education

Many Westerners have grown up with the concept of developing nations as hostile places where violence and unrest run rampant. A little travel experience will stamp out that idea quickly, and it’s important to know that, as with many places, common misconceptions about the risks of traveling to Haiti are largely untrue or greatly exaggerated.

Helping people come to know more about a country makes them fear it less, which removes barriers to involvement.

Work to Deliver Clean Water

There is no resource so precious to human life as clean water, yet in many impoverished regions around the world, people struggle through everyday life without it. Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, is home to many tribal groups who travel miles for access to limited water supplies.

Projects like Clean Water for Haiti are implementing sustainable solutions such as low-cost biosand filtering units that can be installed quickly and maintained with a minimum amount of training. These are important projects to support. While many projects focus on delivering technology or material goods, none of those things matter if people are dying of waterborne diseases.

Paths to Entrepreneurship

Instead of donating free items, consider ways to partner with locals and encourage entrepreneurship. For example, Knit & Pearls, a company out of Avon, Conn., has teamed with nonprofit Haiti Projects Inc. to employ roughly 100 Haitian women who knit goods they then resell to the local community.

Instead of donating goods, which would hurt local markets, this approach puts the power of production in the hands of the people and allows them to take part in growing the local economy. It is a critical paradigm shift — these people are more than capable of supporting themselves, but they must learn the right way to do so, rather than just giving away free goods.

By encouraging entrepreneurship, you can help the community work toward the goal of involvement in global trade. Countries not involved in the global trade network suffer without access to income from trade deals. Entrepreneurs can be enough to make the difference between a country’s First-World vs. Third-World status.

Support Women and Girls

Women’s rights have been a topic of contention in the developed world since the Industrial Revolution. However, women in impoverished areas must often endure much crueler realities than what we face in the developed world. Not only do males often treat them as second-class citizens, but they also get saddled with the burden of raising families and educating children with little help.

Finding ways to partner with progressive women's organizations can be doubly effective. Not only will you be making an immediate difference in people's lives, but you will also be helping advance the broader, global movement toward better treatment of women.

Every company is different. What works for one might not be feasible for another, but surely there is something you can do. Talk to your employees, and find out what their interests are.

Share stories of places you’ve traveled and things you’ve done to help on your company intranet or website. People like to support progressive companies, so your efforts aren’t just good for places like Haiti — they’re good for business, too.

I had a bowl of strawberries for breakfast this morning, which sounds unremarkable, even in the middle of February. Thanks to growers in Florida, Mexico, and South America, I can sit at my breakfast table in the middle of a California winter, munching away on strawberries.

But for every strawberry delighting my palate, another is lost, wasted somewhere on the long road from farm to table. Of the 1.3 billion tons of food that is wasted every year, fruits, vegetables, and tubers have the highest loss: a staggering 50 percent.

Fully one-third of all food produced globally for human consumption is wasted. In the U.S. the percentage of total food waste runs as high as one-half.

Something to think about while enjoying my strawberries.

Lost in transportation
Food waste comes in a variety of flavors, at all stages of the value chain. Wasted food is a loss at an economic, social, and environmental level. Food waste is a serious global challenge, but the particulars of how and why it happens varies from region to region, says Steve Brabbs, Global Technology Leader for Transport Protection at DuPont Protection Solutions, who spoke with CR Magazine. “In the developing world,” says Brabbs, “the majority of food waste happens simply because there’s nowhere to store it.” Even while people still go hungry, a lack of refrigeration or proper storage facilities prevents this food from reaching consumers. In the developed world the leading source of food waste is, ironically, as Brabbs says, “in your refrigerator at home.” How many “science experiments” lurk in your ‘fridge? Or uneaten food that looks okay but has passed its “sell by” date?

I don’t know about you, but there’s something empowering about these data. If most food waste happens in my refrigerator, there is something tangible I can do to help solve the problem.

That takes care of a big part of the problem, but what about food that’s wasted before it even gets to me? After waste at the consumer end comes food “lost in transportation.”

“A big piece of the cause of that is handling during transportation,” Brabbs says.

Degree hours
Some food goes bad long before it reaches its destination. Some arrives at the grocery store only to be discarded by an overwary grocer. Brabbs explains that the most difficult situation is produce that is shipped, arrives at the store in apparently good shape, but it’s not as it appears.

“It looks ok,” says Brabbs, “but during transportation it’s been exposed to conditions which aren’t favorable.” The impact isn’t immediate, but the shelf life of the produce is diminished. The usefulness of “shelf life” is not without its detractors. This added element of conditions during transport is pushing many stakeholders in the value chain to consider a concept called “degree hours,” essentially a function time and exposure to extreme temperature.

“Once you harvest a product you can expose it to so many degrees of temperature for so many hours,” Brabbs explains. Shelf life is thus determined by the degree hours of the product: lower temperature, more hours on the shelf, higher temperature, less shelf life.

Deploying a concept like degree hours in the field is easier said than done. “[The impact of degree hours] varies enormously from one product to another,” says Brabbs, but “in general considering degree hours is quite useful.” Analyzing degree hours is another tool in the stakeholder toolbox guarding against breaks in the cold chain of transport.

Never break the (cold) chain
The cold chain is a logistical concept describing an is an “uninterrupted series of refrigerated production, storage and distribution activities, along with associated equipment and logistics, which maintain a desired low-temperature range.”

Think of a pallet of strawberries sitting on a South American tarmac waiting to be loaded into the belly of a jetliner headed north. The primary link in the cold chain here is the packaging and protective covering as the fruit sits on the asphalt in the midday sun. The strength of the link depends on the type of cover used.

A palette of goods wrapped only in plastic film sitting on a tarmac in the sun can reach temperatures as high as 133°F. Consider the cold chain broken and degree hours used up. That same pallet in the same conditions covered by DuPont’s patented Tyvek Cargo Covers heats up to only 72 °F, a substantial difference that can mean more and fresher produce reaching consumers instead of withering on the asphalt.

The cold chain goes both ways. Excessive cold will damage produce as much as extreme heat. Tyvek protects against temperature excursions in either direction.

So what exactly is Tyvek and how does it work?

The complex weave of a simple idea
Tyvek is not new. In fact, in 2017, DuPont celebrated the 50-year anniversary of Tyvek. The material is used for a range of applications, from graphics, building envelope sheathing, and protective apparel, to pharmaceutical protection and, most recently, cargo covers for perishable food transport.

Tyvek is fabricated from high-density polyethylene fibers woven in a unique process that “produce very fine pores in a very complicated, chaotic structure,” Brabbs says. This process gives Tyvek its unique qualities.

Among these qualities is not just the temperature control we’ve discussed, but high strength, and “breathability.” A function of the complex weave of Tyvek® is its ability to respirate. Similar to the cold chain, perishable produce has a range of optimal humidity. Fresh fruits and vegetables maintain internal moisture, at the same time, temperature changes lead to condensation and excessive moisture. The fibrous material used in Tyvek regulates moisture content as well as temperature.

While Tyvek, in its many formulations, isn’t new, its application for reducing food waste during transport is, relatively speaking. “The technology has been around for a long time,” Brabbs says.

“What we’ve done is understand the need and application for this particular application of shipping produce,” says Brabbs. After a thorough analysis of challenges inherent in transporting perishable produce, DuPont engineers compared these requirements with a range of Tyvek materials best suited for the application.

“It’s not a static thing,” Brabbs says, “We continue to move forward, adapt, and learn.”

No silver bullet
Food waste is a symptom of a larger “wicked problem,” one of many demanding our attention. Wicked problems oblige wicked solutions. But wait. This all started with my bowl of strawberries this morning. While the cosmic battle rages between wicked problems and solutions, let’s throw a cover over our food.

This article was originally published in CR Magazine

By Tom Idle

This article is sponsored by Ocado and went through our normal editorial review process. 

Food waste is a huge global issue. Every year, UK households throw away £13 billion worth of food. A staggering 7.3 million tonnes of household food waste was thrown away in 2015, according to the waste advisory body WRAP.

And of that, some 4.4 million tonnes was deemed to be ‘avoidable’ waste, perfectly edible at some point before it was put in the bin. It’s therefore exciting to see online supermarket Ocado determined to eliminate food waste from their supply chain.

Ocado’s unique, automated business model runs on efficiency – fresh products can arrive from suppliers and be out for delivery in as little as five hours. Every bag of shopping is packed in one of its huge fulfilment centres, equivalent in size to 30 supermarkets.

Fewer locations make forecasting less risky than for supermarkets with hundreds of stores. On top of that, proprietary technology and a focus on efficiency means Ocado’s food waste is incredibly low. Just one in 6,000 items goes to waste: that’s less than 0.02%.

Despite these incredibly low figures, the business believes that no edible food should go to waste: “We’d rather see food in someone’s belly, than in the bin,” says Head of Corporate Responsibility, Suzanne Westlake. “Redistributing food which – though perfectly edible – can’t be delivered to customers is a great way to achieve our goal of becoming the UK’s most eco-friendly supermarket.”

The benefits of their business model aside, Ocado have a few other strategies to reduce food waste; some even stretch inside their customers’ homes. Receipts are automatically arranged by the correct storage method – fridge, cupboard, or freezer – and by Use-By dates, helping customers plan their meals for the week ahead.

Ocado’s Product Life Guarantee promises customers that the products they receive will have the longest Use-By dates possible, maximising the amount of time they have to enjoy food at home. Products at risk of falling below this guarantee are heavily discounted and offered to bargain-hunting customers as they check out. But if these measures don’t work, Ocado’s strategy is to make sure the food is redistributed, rather than wasted.

In 2017 Ocado redistributed over 2,200 tonnes of food. The only food wasted is inedible – such as defrosted frozen items, or fresh products like meat where packaging seals have been broken. None of their food waste goes to landfill.

Like lots of other retailers, for many years they’ve sold food with short shelf life to Company Shop, the UK’s largest redistributor of surplus products. When the charitable arm of Company Shop – Community Shop – launched in 2015, they were one of the first supermarkets to sign up and publicly support the venture, which helps people in food crisis regain financial independence.

On top of that, they have built relationships with charities and organisations local to their three Customer Fulfilment Centres and 15 of their 19 delivery hubs. Each Food Partner is chosen for their individual approach to feeding thousands of people at risk of, or experiencing, food poverty. Some operate as food banks while others specialise in redistributing food to community cafés, smaller charities, and community organisations. Testament to their commitment to putting edible food in bellies, not bins, Ocado even has relationships with local animal parks and zoos.

“My aim is close all the loopholes, so that there’s nothing edible left at the end. Even if we can’t find a suitable food charity, we’ll send food that’s safe to eat to local animal parks, right down to the last bruised banana,” says Suzanne Westlake, Ocado’s Head of Corporate Responsibility.

Ocado makes getting shopping out of its Fulfilment Centres look easy, but if a customer cancels their order after despatch, it’s not hygienic to put it back. The unpredictability of this poses a significant risk of food waste. Out of 19 delivery hubs, 15 work with FareShare and The Real Junk Food Project, organisations specialising in redistributing food though community cafés or smaller community groups. Cancelled orders come back to the hub, age-restricted and frozen items are removed, but the rest is available for Food Partners to collect and redistribute.

Food hygiene is an obvious hurdle to redistributing fresh food. To prevent potential food poisoning further down the line, Ocado’s Food Partners sign a donation agreement, promising they’ll comply with the Food Safety Act, and keep food at the correct temperature. Financially, refrigerated transport proved to be a big hurdle for smaller, independent Food Partners based in Hampshire, Wiltshire, Hertfordshire, Yorkshire, and the West Midlands.

“We can’t let people take perishable food if they can’t keep it at the correct temperature, it’s just not safe. Some of our Food Partners were spending vast amounts on refrigerated van hire, or fundraising to buy transport and fridges for storage, so it made sense to step up and help,” Westlake says.

Ocado has donated eight refrigerated vans to charities they work with, making it easier for them to collect and redistribute fresh food to local families and community groups. The vans are taxed, insured and maintained on behalf of each charity, and drivers are given risk management training to keep them safe on the road.

Financing for the vans comes from the Ocado Foundation, custodian of all charity money, including the proceeds from single-use carrier bag legislation. “By law, we’re obliged to charge customers 5p for every carrier bag used. The Foundation takes responsibility for these funds, and they’re used for waste-reducing and recycling initiatives, feeding into the spirit of the legislation, which aims to reduce littering and protect wildlife,” adds Westlake.

Understanding the needs of all involved is the key to sustainable food waste partnerships, says Westlake; “We can’t make our food waste somebody else’s problem. Working closely with each charity means we understand their needs, and, just as importantly, what they don’t need.”

For example, one charity partner runs a 41-bed homeless shelter, so it always needs lots of bread. Another works with a mother and baby group on certain days of the week, so on those days they increase donations of milk, yoghurt and fresh fruit.

This tailored approach is helping Ocado build links with surrounding communities and answer a frequent customer request for ways to donate food as they shopped.

Customers can choose £2.50, £5, or £10 Donate Food With Ocado charity vouchers to add to their order. For every pound donated, the company donates at least two pounds worth of food to charities and food banks. Matched food comes from the nearest fulfilment centre, so donations stay local.

“Customers wanted to donate food locally. Most high-street supermarkets have a local food bank bin they can put a tin of beans, or a box of cereal into. The problem with this model is that food banks only get dry or tinned goods in unpredictable amounts. So we turned the donation model on it’s head, and gave the food banks a way to request fresh, nutritious food in the quantities they need, so they can redistribute food more efficiently,” says Westlake.

Since 2014, customers have donated over £260,000 with Ocado donating food worth over half a million pounds to food banks. This system is unique, reducing food waste, offering customers the opportunity to donate locally as part of their weekly routine, and most importantly, empowering Food Partners.

Delivering fresh, quality food to customers as efficiently as possible is a central tenet of Ocado’s business strategy. Now, that benefits those in food crisis, too: around 95% of donated food is fresh meat, fish, fruit, and vegetables.

“Tinned and non-perishable food is all very well for a couple of days, but it doesn’t provide all the nutrients a family needs long term,” Westlake ends. “There is huge food poverty in Britain – and it’s growing. But we believe that everybody, whatever their background or circumstances, is entitled to eat well.”

Image credit: Ocado

As consumers become more discerning about the companies from which they purchase clothing, more brands are stepping up and showing that they are willing to take a stand on social and environmental challenges.

And there is no shortage of ways in which apparel companies can make a difference. Last year, Patagonia became outspoken in its defense of U.S. public lands and national parks. Nike recently burnished its sustainability street cred with an announcement that it strives to run 100 percent on renewables by the next decade. And REI is doing its part to prevent garments from ending up in municipal waste streams by expanding its popular quarterly “garage sales” online so consumers can score these heavily discounted items anytime, without having to queue at one of the co-op’s brick-and-mortar locations.

Meanwhile, more brands realize they have to do more than make their customers look good; they have to prove that their operations are also doing more good than harm. Transparency is key here. For example, Gap Inc.’s Athleta became a certified B Corp last month. The popular yoga clothing brand says that over 2,500 women have benefited from its fair trade and sustainable sourcing policies, with a goal to push that number to 10,000 by 2020. Among the additional sustainability achievements Athleta insists it is making include moving halfway towards its waste diversion and sustainable fabric procurement goals.

On the topic of environmental activism, the global struggle with ocean plastics is a stubborn problem that offers no easy solution. But more apparel companies and NGOs are presenting ideas that can could help prevent this trash from ending up in the seas - while harvesting this material and upcycling it into new products.

One company making a difference on this front is Adidas. The athletic gear company has rolled out new product lines of shoes in recent years - and according to several news sources, sold one million pairs of shoes that are at least in part made out of salvaged ocean plastic. Adidas has also launched a yoga clothing line that includes garments made out of recycled ocean plastic.

Other design labels that recently said they will manufacture clothing that incorporates recycled ocean plastics include Gant and Stella McCartney.

The worldwide garment industry still has much work ahead before it can say with confidence that it is truly ethical and environmentally responsible. A recent United Nations report concluded that the apparel sector is the world’s second highest user of water, consuming as much as 20 percent of the world’s freshwater supplies. And when it comes to labor and human rights, there is still plenty of room for improvement, from Bangladesh to India to Turkey. Nevertheless, progress is being made - and companies like Adidas, Athleta, Patagonia and REI offer ideas on how clothing brands can mitigate their social and environmental impact.

Image credit: Adidas

Facebook has always had its share of critics, but now the company is enveloped in a scandal that is steamrolling into boycott territory. Millions of users' personal data shuttled from Facebook to the consulting firm Cambridge Analytica during the 2016 presidential election cycle, and that information was reportedly used by Russian operatives to manipulate public opinion -- through Facebook itself as well as other social media. To complicate matters further, evidence is mounting that members of the Trump campaign met with Russian operatives during the election cycle.

Co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg will need to do some serious crisis management to step away from the Cambridge Analytica scandal and salvage the company's reputation. That could mean a significant change in corporate culture is in store. The question is whether or not Zuckerberg will act on one source of the company's woes, namely, board member Peter Thiel's aggressive support for President Trump during and after the 2016 election cycle.

When boycotts work

Focusing on the boycott angle is one way to sift through Facebook's web of troubles as the Cambridge Analytica scandal grows, so let's catch up with that first.

Triple Pundit began exploring boycotts during the 2016 election cycle, when then-candidate Trump sparked the Grab Your Wallet and Sleeping Giants campaigns.

These two campaigns appear to have learned one simple fact about consumer boycotts: they almost never work. Recall how many times Starbucks has been targeted for lavishly publicized boycotts in the past few years (Christmas cups, anyone?), and you can see why consumer-focused activism tends to die on the vine.

Another good example of a boycott survivor is Dick's Sporting Goods. The company took a strong stand on gun control after the Parkland murders, prompting gun "rights" advocates to call for a boycott. However, polling showed that more consumers reacted favorably, and store traffic actually increased in the weeks after the company announced its new policy on guns.

When boycotts do work, at least three factors are involved. First, the boycott involves the wider business community. The strength of this strategy lies in its leverage of brand risk. In one good example, last year advertisers deserted Fox television personality Bill O'Reilly after word of his sexual harassment settlements leaked out. Another Fox personality, Laura Ingraham, is facing the same kind of advertiser blowback after bullying one of the Parkland survivors through social media.

The second factor involves the health of the targeted company. Strong brands that are showing signs of weakness can be more susceptible to boycotts. In this regard it's important to note that boycotts are not always intended to drive a company out of business. They can simply aim for behavior change, and responsive companies can turn that to their advantage.  The Guardian cites the example of the 1990's Nike boycott over child labor issues:

...while the short-term hit to Nike’s profits was significant, the most impressive long-term impact came from the hit that the company took to its brand. Since the 90s, Nike has worked hard not only to rehabilitate its reputation, but to become a sustainability leader.

If a company fails to respond with concrete action, the third element in a successful boycott kicks in. That's when investors lose faith, putting the company at risk of permanent damage if not outright destruction.

Will the Facebook boycott work?

That thing about strong brands showing signs of weakness describes the Facebook situation almost perfectly.

Even aside from general issues like online bullying, Facebook's reputation has been suffering more than usual in recent years. That's partly due to privacy concerns, but another significant factor is that Facebook has become associated with parents and other older users. It is losing the up-and-coming generation of social media users.

The business community's issues with Facebook have also grown more fraught in recent years, especially among publishing companies. The Cambridge Analytica scandal has provided them with a powerful new opportunity to lay out their concerns and flay Facebook's corporate culture in public.

The list of high profile companies openly criticizing Facebook or publicly deleting their Facebook accounts now includes Apple, Mozilla Playboy, and the Elon Musk companies Tesla and SpaceX.

Brands have also begun paying attention to the broader risks and hazards of associating with social media sites that fail to block hate speech, child exploitation and other toxic content. In one outstanding example, last week Unilever CMO Keith Weed slammed social media for breaching public trust -- including the issue of Russian election interference -- and outlined how his company will leverage its advertising dollars to force change.

The website Tech.co summed up the state of play between Facebook and the business community last January:

After all, brand and publisher content pages have seen an unprecedented decline in engagement in recent years; engagement that these businesses have relied on for subscriptions, purchases, and generally staying afloat. The persistent attack has forced these publishers and brands to ask an even more important question: why does Facebook hate businesses so much?

That brings us to the investor community. When the issue of Facebook's role in Russian propaganda came up shortly after Election Day 2016, Zuckerberg dismissed the notion as " a crazy idea."

However, by last fall the criticism picked up steam as part of a broader "tech backlash." In December 2017 Newsweek teased out an observation that sums it up:

Roger McNamee, a big early investor in Facebook, recently told Techonomy, “Facebook has the largest margins of any company of similar size in the American economy. They’re functioning like a drug company without doing clinical trials.”

In addition to evidence of Facebook's role in the 2016 election cycle, the Federal Trade Commission is also looking into the company's affairs, prompting another wave of concern among investors. As of this writing the company's stock has recovered some of its losses, but as recently as last week it had dropped 18% or $80 billion.

To sum up, all three factors in a successful boycott -- consumers, businesses and investors -- are joined in force against Facebook.

What's this about Peter Thiel?

Circling back to idea that good brands in decline are especially vulnerable to boycotts, one factor that deserves closer scrutiny is the role of Facebook board member Peter Thiel in the company's reputation issues.

Just a few weeks ago, Triple Pundit was wondering why Thiel's name has never come up when the topic turns to the Russian involvement in the 2016 campaign. Well, now it has.

Thiel was an early supporter of Trump as far back as the primary cycle, puzzling Silicon Valley observers who wondered why he would risk his A-list status on a seemingly ridiculous long shot.

Thiel's association with Trump put Facebook in a touchy position. Critics questioned why the company would tolerate a board member who actively supported Trump. More to the point, critics questioned why Facebook would tolerate Peter Thiel, who has been linked to anti-immigrant and white supremacist organizations in his own right, over and above his association with Trump.

The criticism intensified in the runup to after Election Day and after, when the President's incendiary campaign rhetoric crossed the line into national policy.

As for why Thiel bet on Trump, the answer could be as simple as access.

His relationship with President Trump may seem rocky at times, but Thiel has been an advisor to the administration on technology policy. As late as September 2017 he was also reported to be in consideration for a position on Trump's Intelligence Advisory Board.

In that context, the bottom line factor kicks in. Thiel's data mining company Palantir already had federal contracts under its belt before the 2016 election cycle. Given Trump's campaign rhetoric on crime, national security and immigration, the prospects for additional Palantir contracts in a Trump administration must have looked good.

And, that brings us right back around to the Facebook/Cambridge Analytica scandal.

Palantir has played a role in carrying out Trump's immigration policies, and according to recent reports Palantir's efforts have gotten an assist from Facebook users' private information.

The Cambridge Analytica connection came in 2013-2014, when a Palantir employee reportedly developed a Facebook data harvesting app for Cambridge Analytica.

Palantir now characterizes that work as unauthorized freelancing by "a rogue employee," but there is a more recent connection between Palantir and Cambridge Analytica. In 2016, Peter Thiel's assistance to the Trump campaign included a large donation to the Make America #1 PAC, which employed Cambridge Analytica during the election cycle.

So, freelance activity by a rogue owner?

The news about Peter Thiel's connection to Cambridge Analytica couldn't come at a worse time for Zuckerberg. In the latest turn of events, Zuckerberg is trying to distance the company from a newly leaked 2016 memo on the "ugly" side of its business model, written by Facebook VP Andrew "Boz" Bosworth.

The last thing Zuckerberg needs is another Facebook relationship to disavow, but after defending Peter Thiel vigorously all throughout the 2016 campaign he may finally have to cut the cord.

Meanwhile, Zuckerberg's other damage control steps include issuing a public apology, acknowledging that more government oversight of social media may be needed, and outlining steps that Facebook is taking to protect user privacy.

If that sounds like pretty weak tea, it is. None of this speaks to any plans for a change in the company's corporate culture.

If Zuckerberg follows through on his pledge to testify before Congress, he might want to prepare an answer just in case somebody asks what was Peter Thiel doing on his company's board of directors, and why he is still there.

Photo (cropped/rotated): Peter Thiel via sportsfile/flickr.

This article is sponsored by Maala and went through our normal editorial review process. 

Innovative technology is critical to today’s sustainable and growing communities, and nowhere is that more evident than in Israel. A country with a population of less than 9 million people and a land mass smaller than the U.S. state of Vermont, it has become the go-to place for disruptive technology that can answer some of the world’s biggest social and environmental challenges.

But for many of Israel’s innovators, it isn’t just ingenuity that drives progress. The United Nations’ 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are increasingly seen as the fundamental pillars to business development in Israel.

Events like the annual Maala International Con(fair)ence in Tel Aviv are helping to increase support for corporate responsibility. The conference, now in its third year, serves as a platform for companies that support sustainable business growth. The Maala Index, which was launched in 2003, also serves as a means for ranking and encouraging publicly traded companies to integrate SDGs into their company portfolio.

And support is growing. Companies like Netafim, a global leader in irrigation technology, Strauss Group’s think tank, The Kitchen and Israel’s forward-thinking leader in construction, Shikun & Binui, are becoming the face of Israel’s efforts to address the world’s most pressing problems -- as outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals -- with innovative thinking.

Netafim: Promoting global water conservation

Water has always been Israel’s greatest challenge. With limited freshwater resources and barely three inches of rainfall a year in Israel’s parched desert regions, the country is constantly in demand of new and better ways to irrigate its crops and at the same time, promote and increase water conservation. The UN’s sixth SDG continues to be Israel’s greatest challenge and its greatest level of accomplishment as a sustainable nation.

Few Israeli companies are as well known for their contribution to that effort as Netafim, the maker of the world’s first commercial drip irrigation systems. The effort to develop a sustainable irrigation method for food crops in low water-retention areas some 50 years ago is now helping to revolutionize the way that crops are fertilized and irrigated. And in so doing, it’s helping to shape the way the world addresses food scarcity.

Naty Barak, Netafim’s chief sustainability officer, is a huge proponent of the drip irrigation system. Smart irrigation systems, he said, have not only transformed Israel’s desert landscapes but helped governments reshape their regional economies.

Barak said when Ninxia, the autonomous region of China, asked for Netafim’s help in building a new irrigation system, it was facing two substantial hurdles. The first was to find a sustainable way to nurture China’s prestigious wine country.

“They came to us because the challenge they faced from losing water from the Yellow River due to over-pumping in that province,” said Barak. “And the head of the province sent his agricultural people to Israel to Kibbutz Hatzerim [where Netafim is based] to learn about drip irrigation.” Netafim established a manufacturing plant and training center in China and taught local farmers how to increase their yields using less resources and smarter management.

“It saved a lot of water,” said Barak.

But the outcome – which began as the second challenge – surprised even the Chinese government.

“They came back to us and said, ‘You know, we have another challenge that we didn’t think drip irrigation would help,’” said Barak. “And this was the migration [of farmers to the city].”

Over the years, thousands of farmers, faced with dwindling water resources and increasing poverty had begun migrating to China’s cities to in search of new work. But as the new irrigation systems were gradually introduced, farmers not only returned to the area but investments in Ninxia’s agriculture rose as well.

“The younger farmers were attracted to the [new technology],” Barak explained. Implementing innovative methods not only improved crops and revitalized the economy but inspired a whole new interest in “smart” agritech. It offered a new educational platform for reducing poverty, while transforming ecosystems with better water management.

But Netafim is only one example of how Israel’s smart water technology is helping to ensure the 6th Sustainable Development Goal is met through water conservation methods. New apps developed in Israel now allow farmers in the Galilee, for example, to monitor a tree’s “thirst” from miles away and regulate crop irrigation, reducing crop loss and increasing sustainable food production.

Other startup companies are advancing that effort with wireless monitoring systems that may one day be able to anticipate drought conditions caused by climate change and offset the chances of a famine in remote areas of the world.

Strauss Group: Israel’s food tech kitchen

The Strauss Group, Israel’s biggest food tech corporation, has come up with a different, but equally impactful way to inspire global innovation, this time around Sustainable Development Goal 2, No Hunger. The two-company corporation is home to more than 50 brands, many with international popularity.

But it’s Strauss’ outlook on food technology and what defines innovative strategies, said Chief Technology Officer Dr. Eyal Shimoni, that provides its cutting-edge advantage.

“For us, food tech is not a type of technology, rather the field where you apply this technology solution,” said Shimoni, who pointed out that a farm food supplier can be many things. It can be a company that excels in research and quality control, energy management or waste solutions. It’s a critical part of the product’s success.

“So when we look at food tech, we actually look at the whole supply chain, from farm to fork, while asking ourselves is this technology contributing to either our productivity or our safety, our product edge and if it does, then it is part of what we call food tech.” These solutions span the food chain from agriculture practices (to increase yields) to solutions to reduce spoilage and food waste, all working in concert toward the shared goal of hunger reduction.

For Strauss, food technology is also a pathway to global sustainability. So in 2010, Shimoni said, the corporation began looking for ways to increase its “sustainable ecological edge.” Innovation had always been a part of Strauss’s successful brand, which had worked with global companies like Pepsi through the years. Collaborative innovation seemed like a natural progression. But how?

It established what it called the “Alpha Strauss” initiative, the first level to increasing partnerships between businesses across the world. Then, in 2014, it launched its incubator, The Kitchen.

The incubator model allows companies, both well-established and fledgling startups, to address different elements of the food chain challenge collectively. The idea, Shimoni said, wasn’t just to come up with new ideas, but to build the foundation for better food for the planet that could meet demands in developing countries as well as places like North America, Israel and Europe.

“[Strauss] cannot provide the market for all the technologies developed here. So we brought – and are still bringing food innovators” that can help build new ecosystems, said Shimoni.

Startups like food-safety company Inspecto,  “fast-learning robotics solution” Deep Learning Robotics, and purveyor of non-dairy probiotic Yofixa have since joined the initiative, helping to develop new, ecologically sustainable ways to feed the planet. At the same time, The Kitchen is providing a means in which the world’s most challenging social goals can be addressed through collaboration.

Shikun & Binui's BuildUp Program

Shikun & Binui, Israel’s largest construction contractor was initially founded in the 1920s as a Jewish workers’ union in British-controlled Palestine. Today it is a multinational construction company with investments in renewable energy and real estate.

According to Orry Ben-Porath, Shikun & Binui's vice president of sustainability, marketing and innovation, the company aligns its goals with those of the UN’s 11th SDG, the aim of ensuring that the world’s cities are sustainable, inclusive and safe environments in which to live.

But integrating cutting-edge technologies into the construction sector has often been a challenge, said Ben-Porath. And Israeli construction firms aren’t alone in facing that hurdle.

Ben-Porath said there are many reasons for that shortage of innovation: a constantly changing labor force, economic factors in an industry with a relatively narrow profit margin, and the nature of the construction work.

“We’re always on the move,” said Ben-Porath. “We are [at the work site] for a year, two or three and then leave." Constant turnover of both personnel and working environment has made it difficult to introduce and train workers on new, ever-changing technology.

So in 2016, the company launched the BuildUp initiative, aimed at attracting innovative approaches to the industry’s most pressing needs.

The BuildUp tools help constructions firms operate more efficiently and integrate sustainability standards more easily. After several years of effort, the industry is beginning to see results. New apps that use augmented reality are helping pair the specifications of blue prints with onsite human expertise. Drones, smart cranes and robotics are automating a workplace that has largely relied on manual labor.

To date, BuildUp has constructed an ecosystem of more than 600 organizations that have a vested interest in increasing innovation in relevant markets.

"What we believe at Shikun & Binui is that we are uniquely positioned as a global construction company headquartered in Israel, to leverage the innovation here ... and to put it to work for our benefit and the industry’s benefit."

Disruptive tech with a purpose

Today, Israel is in a league of its own when it comes to capitalizing on the benefits of disruptive technology. Its R&D budget is almost twice that of the United States, ranking even above South Korea. But it’s the growing number of Israeli companies that are incorporating SDGs into their corporate vision, acknowledges the United Nations, that is truly sending a message: Investment in corporate responsibility has a global impact.

By Alice Williams

Ever since 2002, most areas in the Lone Star State have had deregulated energy markets, meaning that electricity isn’t regulated by municipalities. Unlike residents of most states, consumers in Texas have the power to choose which retail electric provider (REP) they wanted to supply their electricity.

Prior to 2002, cities were responsible for regulating electric utility services, and rates were tied to the cost of fuel, allowing utilities to monopolize the market. Energy deregulation changed that trend, creating a financially competitive energy market in a state that consumes more energy per capita than most. Deregulation affected more than just rates, though—it has also spurred impressive developments in the field of renewables.

The Effects of Deregulation

The Texas energy market has a lot of benefits for consumers, but perhaps the biggest is that it gives them a choice. Between 2002 and 2009, it’s estimated that 86% of customers made a switch between companies or at least switched plans within their existing company. Instead of being forced to use one certain provider or one certain plan, consumers in Texas have dozens of price plans to choose from.

That wealth of options has forced electricity companies to work harder to win customers. They have to keep prices competitive and sincerely listen to consumer feedback—if they don’t, there are plenty of other REPs ready and willing to step in.

Deregulation and the Development of Renewable Resources

Deregulating the energy market has also been a huge factor in motivating energy companies to develop newer and more affordable forms of energy. In many cases, the big reason behind this exploration is for the economic benefits, but the result is positive for the environment as well. In fact, while the Lone Star State leads the country in the emission of greenhouse gases, it also leads the United States in wind power production. Texas produces more electricity from wind power than from its two nuclear power plants, and the state has the capacity to create more than 21,000 megawatts of power from wind turbines. And plenty of consumers are eager to take advantage of that impressive capacity.

In 2015, the city of Georgetown, Texas, became the first city in the state to move toward 100% renewable energy—because renewables were that much cheaper. Georgetown signed a 20-year deal with EDF for wind power in 2014, and SunEdison plants in western Texas will provide solar power to the city until 2041.

While many associate western Texas with oil, its wide expanses of sunny and gusty land make it the perfect place for wind and solar power too, so there’s a good chance other cities may follow Georgetown’s lead in the future.

Can the Power Grid Handle the Competitiveness?

The movement toward sustainable energy isn’t all smooth sailing, though. The competitive energy costs and renewables boom have pushed some of the state’s major coal energy providers to close down, and that loss from the traditional energy grid has been so extreme that the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), a nonprofit that manages Texas’s power grid, is concerned about the grid not having enough power to support demands.

So while progress away from emission-heavy fuels like coal is great for the environment, it could cause some logistical issues for state residents until renewables can sufficiently make up for the loss. There’s also a lack of state-wide renewable energy incentives, like net metering—though some companies are so committed to sustainable development that they’ve made their own incentives.

Technical difficulties aside, most signs point towards deregulation continuing to be successful in Texas. The benefits—both financial and environmental—have thus far been worth the bumps in the road.

Alice Williams is a communications professional with an MA in Communication Studies. In her spare time, she freelances and blogs about health and wellness over at www.honestlyfitness.com.

By 3P Editors

Nine CR professionals have contributed to CSR 2020: Experts Look Ahead, an ebook that “examines not only all the ways in which CSR has been evolving, but what companies will need to do in the next few years as expectations continue to increase.”

As marketers and CSR professionals know, today’s consumers are “demanding that companies step up to fulfill social contracts, employees want to work for companies that give back, and even large institutional investors are now demanding that companies demonstrate social impact,” as Blackbaud, the ebook’s organizer, puts it.

The report’s introduction quotes the oft-cited statistic, that “two-thirds of CEOs agree that companies—not the government or NGOs–will lead progress toward long-term societal improvement.” This is new territory for business, which has expertise in the strategy department but not so much in the social policy area. The report looks at how companies have navigated these uncharted waters, and what plans are being made for the future, based on recent experience.

CSR 2020: Experts Look Ahead collates insights from thought leaders on topics such as employee engagement, human social responsibility, shared value, impact measurement, the SDGs, and more. Chapters headings give a good sense of the range of views: “Why Business Should be a Force for Good in Society,” “Why “Human” Must Replace “Corporate,” and “The Future of Cause is . . . Embedded.” Among the contributors enlisted by Blackbaud are Daryl Brewster, CEO CECP; Justin Bakule, Executive Director, Shared Value Initiative; David Hessekiel, President & Founder, Cause Marketing Forum; and Blackbaud’s own Michelle DiSabato, Lead Impact Advisor.

CSR 2020: Experts Look Ahead is an idea-packed white paper that serves as a detailed conceptual map for the CSR of the future. Read it and think. Download this free ebook here.

Photo: Blackbaud